linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100110011400.GF25790@Krystal>
Date:	Sat, 9 Jan 2010 20:14:00 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
	barrier

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 16:03 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 06:16:40PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 18:05 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Then we should have O(tasks) for spinlocks taken, and 
> > > > O(min(tasks, CPUS)) for IPIs.
> > > 
> > > And for nr tasks >> CPUS, this may help too:
> > > 
> > > > cpumask = 0;
> > > > foreach task {
> > > 
> > > 	if (cpumask == online_cpus)
> > > 		break;
> > > 
> > > > 	spin_lock(task_rq(task)->rq->lock);
> > > > 	if (task_rq(task)->curr == task)
> > > > 		cpu_set(task_cpu(task), cpumask);
> > > > 	spin_unlock(task_rq(task)->rq->lock);
> > > > }
> > > > send_ipi(cpumask);
> > 
> > Good point, erring on the side of sending too many IPIs is safe.  One
> > might even be able to just send the full set if enough of the CPUs were
> > running the current process and none of the remainder were running
> > real-time threads.  And yes, it would then be necessary to throttle
> > calls to sys_membarrier().
> > 
> 
> If you need to throttle calls to sys_membarrier(), than why bother
> optimizing it? Again, this is like calling synchronize_sched() in the
> kernel, which is a very heavy operation, and should only be called by
> those that are not performance critical.
> 
> Why are we struggling so much with optimizing the slow path?
> 
> Here's how I take it. This method is much better that sending signals to
> all threads. The advantage the sys_membarrier gives us, is also a way to
> keep user rcu_read_locks barrier free, which means that rcu_read_locks
> are quick and scale well.
> 
> So what if we have a linear decrease in performance with the number of
> threads on the write side?

100% agree. Will use spinlocks.

And will keep the "tree-based" IPI wait as "future work", if anyone ever
need this.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/